09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View PlanningCommission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • desire to pave the driveway to the width of the garage. Commissioner Laube noted that were some lots in the City that could accommodate this. Chairperson Peterson stated, he was in favor of larger garages, as lot size permits, rather than storage sheds for the storage of items. He stated he believed garage space was better all; ound for this purpose. He stated however, he would not like to see more impervious surfac .th tis necessary, and theproblems with run off. He stated this could result in a vim.,. from t: .of simply garages, with houses peeking out here and there. He stated he was also aleOffraninittlyggifaiewing the Code, and the requirements of surroundingcommunities re a. e n drivewayt ides 'o see what °'s commonly done, and what would make sense. " .,o.: ":x " lta Ale Commissioner Berke inquired how the applicant would be'al ect .::should the Planning:€ ommission A'3c,i'4C,3�."�?�. desire to look into the Code. Ericson stated Mr. Henning cl ` : ep his driveway as it exists, for the time being. He stated staff would review the Codehitxiay time line. He stated if „wow mat, more time was required, given the public hearings, research, and meetings ith the Commission and the Council, thea applicant could also sign a waiver:.that uld allo " aive his right to get a pp ......,..::::.>::r<: � � g decision within that time frame. He stated if dee t e as><...mended, d after the fact, made his driveway permissible, there would be no need] or a variance,sa d the.request would be voided. "` ��` ': ` ��<�;N�'��#'tom. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to proceedin th`i mt anner. She stated according to the • Code there is no hardship that the c d'etermi: . Mr. Hkmmng inquired regarding the definition of a hardship. Commissioner Stevenson p ry =s'tatedfi �xampleOuld be an unusual lot size, which would restrict a property owner from impd : rring his erty. Commissioner Miller stated there were seven criteria that •:.resented for ng i ... . ah a Commiss 1`'..A<s�:e noted ` At request for variance,.in which a family desired to construct an addition torthouseloser to a<lot i e is an what was allowed. He stated, due to the placement of the house on the:' . an normal lot,,they would have had to construct a hallway between two bedrooms in •r: : ;ti �«::.e deck orporch at the back of the house. He noted the house was also construct n an unusualHe stated this was considered a hardship. Mr. Henning stated the only h >_:::. :::.s:;::;.,. '�'� �- a �,< �>>_:buld be the loss of his_trees_lncatf'r1 in the front of his y. • C a a erson Peterson stag he also agreed that the applicant's design was attractive. He stated the • ,:t.01!on was, as more evelopment occurs, what is a reasonable size for a driveway. jy kms: sl A. t teas the consensus of the Commission, staff could research the matter, in terms :' o • t t ` uirements, and provide information regarding the different ways a code amendment cou • ae.aec•mplished, if so desired. He stated the research might indicate that there is no need for a code amendment, in which case, the Commission could take action upon the current request. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden, to Table the Request for a Variance to Allow a 44-foot Wide Driveway, and Direct Staffto Research Driveway Width Requirements Utilized by Other Cities, and •